Connected: An Internet Encyclopedia
RFC 1122 - 3.3.3 Fragmentation

Top: Connected: An Internet Encyclopedia
Up: Requests For Comments
Up: RFC 1122
Up: 3. INTERNET LAYER PROTOCOLS
Up: 3.3 SPECIFIC ISSUES
Prev: 3.3.2 Reassembly
Next: 3.3.4 Local Multihoming

### 3.3.3 Fragmentation

Optionally, the IP layer MAY implement a mechanism to fragment outgoing datagrams intentionally.

We designate by EMTU_S ("Effective MTU for sending") the maximum IP datagram size that may be sent, for a particular combination of IP source and destination addresses and perhaps TOS.

A host MUST implement a mechanism to allow the transport layer to learn MMS_S, the maximum transport-layer message size that may be sent for a given {source, destination, TOS} triplet (see GET_MAXSIZES call in Section 3.4). If no local fragmentation is performed, the value of MMS_S will be:

                MMS_S = EMTU_S - <IP header size>

and EMTU_S must be less than or equal to the MTU of the network interface corresponding to the source address of the datagram. Note that <IP header size> in this equation will be 20, unless the IP reserves space to insert IP options for its own purposes in addition to any options inserted by the transport layer.

A host that does not implement local fragmentation MUST ensure that the transport layer (for TCP) or the application layer (for UDP) obtains MMS_S from the IP layer and does not send a datagram exceeding MMS_S in size.

It is generally desirable to avoid local fragmentation and to choose EMTU_S low enough to avoid fragmentation in any gateway along the path. In the absence of actual knowledge of the minimum MTU along the path, the IP layer SHOULD use EMTU_S <= 576 whenever the destination address is not on a connected network, and otherwise use the connected network's MTU.

The MTU of each physical interface MUST be configurable.

A host IP layer implementation MAY have a configuration flag "All-Subnets-MTU", indicating that the MTU of the connected network is to be used for destinations on different subnets within the same network, but not for other networks. Thus, this flag causes the network class mask, rather than the subnet address mask, to be used to choose an EMTU_S. For a multihomed host, an "All-Subnets-MTU" flag is needed for each network interface.

DISCUSSION:

  Picking the correct datagram size to use when sending data is a complex topic [IP:9].

  1. In general, no host is required to accept an IP datagram larger than 576 bytes (including header and data), so a host must not send a larger datagram without explicit knowledge or prior arrangement with the destination host. Thus, MMS_S is only an upper bound on the datagram size that a transport protocol may send; even when MMS_S exceeds 556, the transport layer must limit its messages to 556 bytes in the absence of other knowledge about the destination host.

  2. Some transport protocols (e.g., TCP) provide a way to explicitly inform the sender about the largest datagram the other end can receive and reassemble [IP:7]. There is no corresponding mechanism in the IP layer.

     A transport protocol that assumes an EMTU_R larger than 576 (see Section 3.3.2), can send a datagram of this larger size to another host that implements the same protocol.

  3. Hosts should ideally limit their EMTU_S for a given destination to the minimum MTU of all the networks along the path, to avoid any fragmentation. IP fragmentation, while formally correct, can create a serious transport protocol performance problem, because loss of a single fragment means all the fragments in the segment must be retransmitted [IP:9].

  Since nearly all networks in the Internet currently support an MTU of 576 or greater, we strongly recommend the use of 576 for datagrams sent to non-local networks.

  It has been suggested that a host could determine the MTU over a given path by sending a zero-offset datagram fragment and waiting for the receiver to time out the reassembly (which cannot complete!) and return an ICMP Time Exceeded message. This message would include the largest remaining fragment header in its body. More direct mechanisms are being experimented with, but have not yet been adopted (see e.g., RFC-1063).

Next: 3.3.4 Local Multihoming

Connected: An Internet Encyclopedia
RFC 1122 - 3.3.3 Fragmentation